Cliven Bundy v. Feds

[Pointedstick]

they don't have to be famous or have a world renowned success or even save a life to get my respect, i know a few guys who take a stand on a regular basis and i wouldn't caricaturize them as bitter or prideful, if the government charges them a fee/tax and does not provide the service the fee/tax is for, they refuse to pay it, they make their case on the phone and by letter and or at town meetings and sometimes in court to to have the fee/tax dropped or the service provided, some times it works some times it doesn't, but they aren't just some angry internet troll who has abandoned their family and good hygiene to rant without taking action.

as for Bundy i have agreed repeatedly his legal grounds and overall message are a bit incoherent, but he still took a stand (without the threat of violence he would just be strenuously objecting, then get rolled over) and in spite of all his shortcomings as a orator and a legal scholar and as a philosopher, he still gets some respect, it may not be top of the list or even middle but he gets some. and if accomplishing nothing else it has made a public spectacle out of the petty tyranny and militarization of regulatory agency's, and reminded us they were never intended to be either.

There is a strong value to society inherent to such people, even if their actions may be stupid on a micro level. When it comes to government, change often only comes when the powerful are dragged kicking and screaming by the court of public opinion, not like in the private sector where there at least a slow drip of progress inherent to the way the system works. Thus, without such people, government would probably work a lot worse than it already does because the powerful would almost never get challenged. Most of us are far too sensible to go poking the bear.

without them we would be a mess but even with them eventually the bear will poke you, i just read something that said "Last year, regulators issued 3,659 rules. That's equal to one new rule every 2 1/2 hours of every day, or nearly two federal rules issued every business hour." i am fine with avoiding conflict and strategic positioning to be in the best possible (freedom) situation, but i like to think that if cornered i will take a stand and at the rate of new rules mentioned above (if true) its only a matter of time till we all are.

[Kshartle]

Calling people racist is just ad hominem. Has nothing to do with anything.

Bundy was just pointing out that welfare has done what slavery couldn't.....destroy the black family and any hopes for a brighter future. He's correct. At least they had pride and hope back then for a better future. Now the hope is to vote for someone to steal for them and send out a check.

Of course that is the communist plan for black Americans.

He also pointed out that the Mexicans here love their families more than whites and work harder also. I'm sure he's employed them...that big racist!

[Kshartle]

they don't have to be famous or have a world renowned success or even save a life to get my respect, i know a few guys who take a stand on a regular basis and i wouldn't caricaturize them as bitter or prideful, if the government charges them a fee/tax and does not provide the service the fee/tax is for, they refuse to pay it, they make their case on the phone and by letter and or at town meetings and sometimes in court to to have the fee/tax dropped or the service provided, some times it works some times it doesn't, but they aren't just some angry internet troll who has abandoned their family and good hygiene to rant without taking action. 

There is a strong value to society inherent to such people, even if their actions may be stupid on a micro level. When it comes to government, change often only comes when the powerful are dragged kicking and screaming by the court of public opinion, not like in the private sector where there is an inherent slow drip of progress inherent to the way the system works. Thus, without such people, government would probably work a lot worse than it already does because the powerful would almost never get challenged. Most of us are far too sensible to go poking the bear.

It's not stupid on a micro level to them. That's the point. You can look and say they're wasting their time resisting, arguing or whatever. To them a life of pure acceptance of the subjugation is unacceptable.

Saying they should just agree with your personal decision to not complain about being robbed is weird and controlling. Saying they deserve their fate because they know the rules of the game (earning income) is also really bizarre reasoning...to me.

[Kshartle]

Can you name a few? I'm not familiar with any politicians who truly fit this description.

lol i cant think of any either.. still supporting guys who are good at speaking that message is a worthwhile endeavor, even if voting for them is a feelgood do nothing exercise since they either, never win or change their tune if elected...

Of course they talk out of both sides of their mouth, and renege on promises, too.
But as a general rule, the Conservatives and Libertarians are the lesser of two evils in this particular issue.

If your only choice is the lesser of two evils what does that say about the concept of picking your master?

[moda0306]

Have you ever read "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World?"

Yes many times.

You were saying that people should accept their high taxes without complaining about them or choose to earn less, reduce their lifestyle whatever.

I guess you're saying that's your opinion on what behavior would make their life better.

Ok well you're right that I'm making a couple assumptions here, but let's back up and talk about the personal goal of maximizing the emotions that constitute happiness.

There are a ton of variables I can control in my life.  As a matter of logic, allowing myself to spend time, stress, and mental energy on something that I CAN'T CONTROL, is almost surely a recipe for LESS happiness than a ton of other alternatives, even if those alternatives are as simple as reading a book or watching TV.  It might be mentally stimulating for a while, but eventually it will just become toxic.

Now if someone had so much time on their hands, and so much perfected in their lives, that they can waste time by stewing about things they can't change, that would be one thing.  But often, there are levers that could actually be pulled to significantly improve their long-term happiness, but they refuse to address them due to short-term discomfort in dealing with them.  It could be physical health, family health, career health, or other areas of toxic financial problems besides taxes (CC debt, not enough savings, wasting money on things that don't bring happiness, bad investments based on greed and pride, etc). 

These are all within someone's control... unlike the tax code that they spend time complaining about.  So, yes, "accept" what you can't control.  That's EXACTLY what you should do.  The alternative is "rejecting" it.  But you can't reject it without dire consequences.  Dire consequences (foreclosure, jail, death) reduce happiness.  You know I'm not religious, but we'd do well to think about this once in a while:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can,

And wisdom to know the difference.


As people address and fix these issues in their lives, they should come to better terms with how much income they need to be happy, which is probably far less than they thought.  But they might also enjoy their job more if they've taken the steps that they could to improve the relationship they have with their trade.  So who knows where someone will choose to find their balance, but they'll likely be FAR happier than if they just worked 60 hours per week, spent it all on stuff that doesn't really make them happy, and spend a ton of their spare time stewing about shit they can't control.

Do you really think I'm wrong?  That leaving the movable levers in life unmoved, while complaining about things you can't control, actually makes people happier than if they TOOK OWNERSHIP of those things that are adjustable?

I find this a bit unlikely, and in the case of little humans relying on you to teach them how to live a successful life, an almost downright immoral mindset in the face of strategically beneficial action not being taken.

[moda0306]

Have you ever read "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World?"

Yes many times.

You were saying that people should accept their high taxes without complaining about them or choose to earn less, reduce their lifestyle whatever.

I guess you're saying that's your opinion on what behavior would make their life better.

Your quote was:

That, or they subject themselves to "theft" year after year after year, and complain about how they're being "stolen from."  The thing that boggles my mind, is when a business owner who is retiring today can have a bitter hatred for taxes, and not just hatred, but the type where they act like they're currently being wronged in abhorrent ways that they never thought possible.

This is a bit odd, since many of these guys started their business in the 1970's, when the top tax rates were 70%, and there was actually HIGHER taxes on capital than on labor.

If I'm a public-policy advocate, I probably should have sympathy for their plight.... but as a citizen trying to determine who I should "feel bad" for, I just can't work up much sympathy for people who aren't willing to make a choice and come to terms with it.  Either learn to be happy with a $200k After-Tax Income lifestyle, or realize that you're going to have to do $170k worth of work to earn your next $100k of after-tax income.

But year after year, they keep working.  It's like a guy who keeps parking his car in the ghetto with the keys in the ignition.  I can work up some real disgust for the car-thief, but do we have to continue to feel bad for the "victim?"

Sounds to me like your blaming people for their own high taxes, as if they are the cause and if they don't like them just stop earning. It did not sound like you were saying they might individually be happier if they accepted whatever fate their masters doled out to them.

It's absurd to blame people's hatred of the theft of their property on them for earning the property in the first place.

The conversation had nothing to do with where it's now gone.

"Blaming" somebody is a bit vague.  Most things contain shared responsibility.  Do I "blame" a guy who had his car stolen in the ghetto with the keys in the ignition?

No.  He didn't deserve to have his car stolen.  A kid doesn't deserve to get cancer.  An old man doesn't deserve to fall and break his hip.

But he is an idiot if he keeps parking there.  His anger toward the people in that neighborhood is completely misplaced... not because he hasn't been wronged, but because he keeps exposing himself to it and he OWNS HIMSELF (thought I can't prove it).  The concept of self-ownership should make you pretty annoyed with someone b!tching about some unfairness that they can't control while ignoring things that they can.  The kid with cancer and the old man who fell essentially had no way of controlling that outcome.  They have my sympathy long, long before the guy who's a glutton for punishment.

Especially since most of these people actually like/want a lot of things that government provides, but just don't like having to pay for it (this applies to a TON of people.. not just anarcho-capitalists).

There are so many ills in the world, I don't have too much sympathy for someone who repeatedly exposes themselves to an ill for the sake of hedonistic gains, and complains about it while completely controllable steps to improve his life go unaddressed.  That may be a subjective value-judgement, but so is yours that it's "absurd" to blame someone's hatred on themselves.  You can't blame someone for an emotion.  However, you can blame someone for not addressing the areas of their lives that will have a marked improvement on future emotions.  Maybe temporary frustration is warranted, but when you go year after year b!tching and moaning about taxes to the detriment of not only your own happiness, but the security of your family (when that effort/energy could be redirected towards other steps to increase financial security) all so you can drive a new car every other year, it limits my sympathy for you.

If we can get mad about theft, what about all the land and labor value lost to the U.S. government and it's fairer-skinned inhabitants from slaves and Indians?  Should they be "angry" that the government stole what could have been their birth-right, or that some plantation owner & Southern accomplices stole what could have been their ancestors' ability to build a legacy for their families?  How about when the environment is damaged by polluters and I can't get compensated when the acid rain kills fish in my lake?  Should we get angry and stew about it?  Especially if you've got addressable areas in your life to improve your happiness that aren't going addressed (which are probably more the root cause of your anger in the first place)?  NO!  It's a waste.  A black person is never going to get their great-grand-daddy's 40 acres and a mule indexed to an 8% time-value over the last 150 years.  Indians aren't going to get the best of their land back.  And if either of those things WERE to happen, it certainly wouldn't be the result of one poor Indian or black whose kids are going without a stable father, sitting and stewing angrily about their plight.

See?  It works both ways.  I'm not just some liberal crack-pot trying to blame conservatives and libertarians for being hypocrites.  Liberals are too. Hell, I probably am in ways I don't realize yet.  I still find this debate intellectually stimulating, but it could soon become toxic to me, and even if it wasn't, I've got other things that I SHOULD be doing right now to maximize my long-term happiness rather than debating this topic .

But let's at least be self-aware, here. 


So I guess, in summary, I'll never blame someone for their emotions.  I'll never "blame" someone for a wrong done to them.  What I will do, is blame them for not taking the actions in their life to maximize their chances of happiness.  You can't have the "right" to self-ownership without respecting the "responsibility."  Self-ownership isn't just a hall pass to b!tch and moan every time you have something go wrong for you that was caused by another conscious person... it's a responsibility to take your own life by the horns and quit complaining about things that you can't control AND that you knew was going to happen if you took a certain course of action at the expense of addressing things you can to make yourself happier.

[Pointedstick]

Wonderful post, moda. The part about historically wronged people never being made whole reminded me of a friend of my wife's from back in middle school who she has intermittent contact with. This person has become completely obsessed with feeling umbrage at the vast injustice done to her ancestors, the native Americans of the American west. She spends not-insignificant amount of time attending protests, posting provocative images to Facebook, and ranting about how mean white people are.

Meanwhile, in the real world, she's fat, poor, and unhappy.

I realized with some irony one day that my own ancestors who immigrated to this country about 100 years ago were Scottish Catholics, and the reason for their departure was more likely than not persecution and oppression at the hands of my wife's ancestors--Scottish Protestants! You just have to let the past go. It's a classic mental trap.

[moda0306]

Wonderful post, moda. The part about historically wronged people never being made whole reminded me of a friend of my wife's from back in middle school who she has intermittent contact with. This person has become completely obsessed with feeling umbrage at the vast injustice done to her ancestors, the native Americans of the American west. She spends not-insignificant amount of times attending protests, posting provocative images to Facebook, and ranting about how mean white people are.

Meanwhile, in the real world, she's fat, poor, and unhappy.

I realized with some irony one day that my own ancestors who immigrated to this country about 100 years ago were Scottish Catholics, and the reason for their departure was more likely than not persecution and oppression at the hands of my wife's ancestors--Scottish Protestants! You just have to let the past go. It's a classic mental trap.

What's double-maddening (not that I haven't mentioned it), is the fact that not only are you focusing on negative things you can't control, which makes one naturally bitter and frustrated, but there's so much in life, as HB points out, that we DON'T do with that time that would make us truly happy.

It's just a recipe for disaster.  The opportunity cost of spending our limited time on earth stewing about things we can't change is such a tragedy when you finally "discover" the HB freedom-epiphany.  This goes for anyone who's a raging statist or an anarchist. 

And it doesn't mean you have to give up on your cause... If your wife's friend decided to spend the time she does angrily protesting, instead tutoring or mentoring young NA kids to help them through school/life/stress/whatever, she would probably experience some successes and some failures, but at least she'd have positive relationships to cling to, and actually make REAL change in a few peoples lives, and give the rest in her network a GREAT role-model.  It's the best of both worlds.  It directs your passion for a cause in a healthy way for you and others, with mental and social stimulation galore.  Hell, you can even have mini-b!tch sessions about the "white-man" with your "little sisters/brothers" amongst the healthy progress.  It's not like we can't vent from time-to-time.  I do it with family/coworkers/friends.  It just can't utterly consume your free time.

Not to "talk about someone who's in the room," but I'm surprised Kshartle has read the book a few times and still has as much frustration with my personal view (from the perspective of my life's path... not a philosophical debate) of government as effectively being just another boulder in the road of life.


But here's the deal... self-analysis moment:  Here I am nearly stressing over the fact that other people aren't following HB's freedom manual.  Perhaps I should do a lot more looking in the mirror, and quit worrying about whether other people have "found Jesus" on maximizing their happiness.

I'd like to think that I'm still engaging the debate (though a bit snarkily) as an exercise in kicking the tires of HB's philosophy.  But it probably has more to do with (gasp) feeling more comfortable b!tching about something I can't control to assist my sense of pride, rather than addressing issues in my life that would do MUCH more to maximize my own personal long-term happiness.

[Kshartle]

Moda,

I agree with plenty of what you wrote about what people should do to improve their lives.

The issue I have is this: "But he is an idiot if he keeps parking there.  His anger toward the people in that neighborhood is completely misplaced... not because he hasn't been wronged, but because he keeps exposing himself to it"

This is ludacris. We aren't talking about parking a car. We are talking about working here in the land of our birth. Working and/or employing others.

Some of us don't want to just get a handout. Saying people are idiots for engaging in income earning activity when they know a portion will be stolen is silly. Just because they know a chunk is going to be stolen doesn't mean they aren't justified in being angry about it, even if anger is not the best response for their  life. Calling them a glutton for punishment is absurd. People who are high acheivers and producers are not seeking punishment for that. They are seeking rewards. To the extent their rewards are stolen is NOT something they brought on themselves.

This is self-justifying liberal theft thinking. "They know they're gonna get ripped off so they get what they deserve and I don't feel bad for them". Nobody really cares if you feel bad for them. What they'd like is for you and other humans to stop advocating theft and suggesting they accept it or stop creating so much value to be stolen. Those things are the product of a morally comprimised mindset.

Another quote - "Similarly, I don't have too much sympathy for someone who repeatedly exposes themselves to an ill for the sake of hedonistic gains"

You might not have sympathy, but why are you assuming hedonistic gains are the goal? This is acheivement hating liberal nonsense. Anyone who goes out and acheives success and earns and creates and builds must just be greedy right? No. Some people actually enjoy creating value or enjoy work for work's sake. That they want to keep the product of their time and talent is NOT hedonistic. The irony is it's the virtuous liberal who wants to steal what that guy did not the other way around. The creator and worker just want to keep what's theirs.

I make double the median income, and I live a pretty spartan lifestyle. I live off a third, save a third and have a third stolen from me. I am pissed off about the third that's stolen. I don't have a hedonistic lifestyle that pushes me to acheive. On the contrary, I have an economical lifestyle (no kids or mortgage) and a highly productive skill for which I'm well compensated. I would spend a little more if it wasn't stolen, and certainly save a lot more, but these are beside the point. Nothing that I do which causes my confiscatory tax level is due to me being a bad person or having bad values (possesions and the like). Even if it was, don't begrudge me for being pissed about the theft or try to paint it as something I've brought upon myself. That's nonsense. It is theft pure and simple. Whether expressing anger or outrage over the theft is beneficial to my life is debatable. Justification of the anger is not.

I do not bring high taxes upon myself they are forced on my at the threat of kidnapping and being put in a cage. Saying I could just choose to make/earn less and be happier is a false choice. How do you know I'd be happier making half the income I do now? How do you know that about anyone? You don't. 

[Kshartle]

And how about E) Vote for politicians who are in favor of lower taxes and smaller government.

Can you name a few? I'm not familiar with any politicians who truly fit this description.

lol i cant think of any either.. still supporting guys who are good at speaking that message is a worthwhile endeavor,

Why do you think it's a worthwile endeavor to support liars?

[Kshartle]

Moda,

Regarding my lengthy post......while I don't mind a war of words (the only wars that should be fought imo), I don't have much energy for one on this topic.

I just found the idea that people who complain their taxes are too high are to blame for it, gluttons for punishment, hedonistically greedy people who should accept the confiscation of their property without complaint or choose to earn less of it.....to be abhorant. 

I find that mindset condemnable, even if I agree their energy might be served better elsewhere to live a happier life. I consider those two separate issues.

I like your comparison of the US to a ghetto and the government to car theives. But comparring the worker or business owner getting taxed more than they can stand to a guy choosing to park his car in a foolish place is inaccurate. 99% of people born in the US live their entire lives here for a variety of reasons. It's not even close to the decision of where to park your car. And producing value is not the same as having a car. Some people aren't ok with the lifestyle of a leech or a poor person. They aren't choosing taxes and punishment they are refusing a lifestyle they consider unworthy. And I agree with them. And their anger at the thieves is legitimate.

[Kshartle]

the message is true, and needs articulate proponents, the people who are good at getting it across either "never win or change their tune if elected.." you don't really know if they are lairs who might get elected, or truth tellers who cant.... until after the fact. but they still inform and educate along the way, and they create a cynical population that distrusts politicians for there lying ways..... both are necessary

I hear you. I really do.

I was a card carrying member of the libertarian party in my 20s. I voted for Badnarik in 2004. I knew about Harry Browne long before I had ever heard of the PP or any of his books. I knew him from the '88 and '92 campaigns, when I was 9 and 13. I think that's probably pretty rare. I was libertarian even back then because I learned right and wrong as a kid and it stuck. Stealing and hurting people was wrong and that's all I heard from the other candidates.

I will confess I like Pat Buchanon for a lot of reasons back then but I also grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home.

The problem with political action is it legitimizes the wrong stuff by only dissagreeing on details. Supporting the guy who advocates less theft is an acceptance of theft. Supporting the guy who favors less intereference in the market is acceptance of interference. Supporting the guy in favor of regulating pot is acceptance of other people deciding what you can smoke.

The libertarians and small government activists lose and lose and lose. They always think if they can just do a better job with their comprimised message maybe by some miracle they will gain traction. Instead they get devastated.

The concept of what is conservative is so big government now.....the republicans are more "progressive" than the dems a couple decades ago. Romney would probably have been considered too liberal to even run as a dem in the 70s.

As I've said the most successful political party in the US for the last 100 years has been the socialist/communists. They've won every battle even without winning elections. They've won because good people decided to play their game and the commies have never comprimised their principles. They stand firm by them, even if they are the most disgusting and discredited principles from the darkest parts of the human heart. 

political action may not accomplish the goal but it does keep the goal alive, and on rare occasions it moves things in its direction, i don't identify as a political party member and philosophically i am probably closer to your position than you realize, but i am also a realist (or try to be) or maybe a "towards-ist" there are lots of different fronts to push the ball forward, personal, political, economic, education etc there is no one magic bullet... if only everyone would do x all at once (stop believing in force) then it would be fixed... i wish there was one... so until there is a better way, supporting a good messenger or respecting a man who takes a stand or seeking out personal economic freedom, avoiding unnecessary conflict with the system, or taking a stand when cornered and so on, are all i can see to do...

i don't buy the love it or leave it argument either, or the idea that many of the people who complain about taxes or big government are bitter, self destructive, life wasting, angry individuals focused on the wrong things.. or that people who achieve and want to keep the results of those achievements are gluttons for punishment, or hedonistically greedy people.. i would promote a judo approach to taking on the thieves, avoid direct conflict and redirect the force used against you when you can..

it doesn't matter what they call the idea socialist/communists or something else. its all power corrupting, its truism that power corrupts.. because its so true... there may be no cure for it in the micro and only the macro rise and fall of empires and civilizations can end it (and start it all over again)... but i still remain an optimist on most days

[moda0306]

Moda,

I agree with plenty of what you wrote about what people should do to improve their lives.

The issue I have is this: "But he is an idiot if he keeps parking there.  His anger toward the people in that neighborhood is completely misplaced... not because he hasn't been wronged, but because he keeps exposing himself to it"

This is ludacris. We aren't talking about parking a car. We are talking about working here in the land of our birth. Working and/or employing others.

Some of us don't want to just get a handout. Saying people are idiots for engaging in income earning activity when they know a portion will be stolen is silly. Just because they know a chunk is going to be stolen doesn't mean they aren't justified in being angry about it, even if anger is not the best response for their  life. Calling them a glutton for punishment is absurd. People who are high acheivers and producers are not seeking punishment for that. They are seeking rewards. To the extent their rewards are stolen is NOT something they brought on themselves.

This is self-justifying liberal theft thinking. "They know they're gonna get ripped off so they get what they deserve and I don't feel bad for them". Nobody really cares if you feel bad for them. What they'd like is for you and other humans to stop advocating theft and suggesting they accept it or stop creating so much value to be stolen. Those things are the product of a morally comprimised mindset.

K,

It's not ludicrous to hold someone accountable to expect the expected.  I don't get to take a boat out into the ocean during a hurricane and get sympathy.  I also don't get to expect to start a business in a statist country without paying taxes.  Even if I accept your ridiculous anarcho-capitalist premises of having discovered One True Morality (which you seem to have gotten sick of trying to prove even the most simple aspect of it), people still have to, then, be responsible for being able to understand the pros/cons/risk/rewards of the decisions they make.  If they drive their car into a bridge-abutment and blame government because "the bridge shouldn't have been there... government is evil!!!" they don't deserve my sympathy.  If you know a road-block exists.

Nobody is saying people that KNOW they're going to get ripped off deserve to... just that they don't deserve a massive heap of sympathy from the rest of us.  If they WANT individuals to stop advocating for more taxes, that's nice and all, but absent of a reasonable way to achieve that mindset change in 99% of the population that is NOT anarcho-capitalist, they are just spinning their wheels trying to do exactly what HB warns about: trying to CHANGE people's opinions.

I think a lot of this is based on the fact that you think you have discovered the One Moral Truth, and you take that to its logical conclusion that you OWN everything you think you own, taxes are theft, and theft/force are the only moral wrongs that one can be exposed to.

Saying I could just choose to make/earn less and be happier is a false choice. How do you know I'd be happier making half the income I do now? How do you know that about anyone?

I don't KNOW for sure what each person is thinking, K, and unlike you I'm willing to admit when I really can't PROVE something, but HB and myself both think that people put up most of their own road blocks, and can be MUCH more free than they allow themselves to be or think they can be.  Use your emotions to help you decide what actions to take.  If losing 1/3 of your income to taxes makes you ANGRY, decide whether that's because you HATE your job that it takes to earn that money, or you LOVE the lifestyle with which the net income provides.  PRIORITIZE.  Don't try to change other people's minds (like I feel like I'm on the border of doing), and accept full responsibility for your own freedom.  You're not in a concentration camp.  You're not a slave.  You have options.  Earn less, work more, rebel, cheat, or leave.  I have the same options, and make the same calculation.  I'd expect a black person and Indian to do the same.

If you wouldn't be happier earning less and either saving/spending less than that is a-ok.  Be honest with yourself, and make that decision.  But what good does it do you to spend a good portion of your spare-time NOT working just stewing about the fact that you're "being stolen from?"  Is that really what you work extra hours for?  What sort of sympathy am I supposed to have for someone who does that?

Should the son of a war-vet that died in Vietnam be angry at the U.S. government (and supporters of Vietnam) for robbing him of his father and all the economic/social benefit he would have received by having his Dad alive & well?  Or should he move on with his life and try to be the best he can be?

If you KNOW a certain road-block exists in life that you will have to figure out how to deal with, as a human adult, if you want my respect, you have the responsibility to deal with it in a mature manner.  Decide if the trek is worth it WITH the road block.  If it is, do it and enjoy the results.  If it's not, don't do it and enjoy more time to enjoy some more modest things in life.


Further, for someone who loves logic so much when he thinks it serves his position, you sure seem to use the words "silly" and "nonsense" quite a bit.  These are meaningless words the way you use them.  These ideas that HB so-efficiently communicates may not be intuitive, but that is because 1) you want us all to accept your ridiculous premise that anarcho-capitalism has discovered the One Moral Truth, against which no other moral weights need to be measured (a requirement HB never had), and 2) you think a self-owning individual shouldn't be held to account enough to deal with KNOWN road-blocks in a manner befitting an adult. 

When you say you earn twice the Median income, I'm assuming that's around $100,000.  Thanks for being open about that, and I apologize for using that information against you, but the number of opportunities available for a guy earning $100,000 today is, IMO, staggering.  The idea that you can even argue that with me on this website during the work-day is a testament to that.  Spending the amazing potential that much gives us being angry at the government, rather than balancing out what it will take to develop a work-life balance net of taxes, is not only pointless, but with all the horrible conditions of so many families, kids, etc that is outside of their control AND their ability to expect in their lives, I can't waste my sympathies on that plight.

But perhaps this discussion would better be served by you figuring out that morality can NOT be proven, and therefore our anger is not only strategically incorrect, but possibly not even warranted.  Theft is only a valid concept in the presence of morally-valid ownership. If you can't prove morally-valid exclusive control of a thing exists, then your feelings on morality are just that... feelings.  It's harder to build anger over morality when you acknowledge all the other potential moral measuring sticks out there, even if we don't acknowledge that a huge portion of our wealth (you and I both) came as a result of theft via the U.S. and other governments.

[Xan]

I knew about Harry Browne long before I had ever heard of the PP or any of his books. I knew him from the '88 and '92 campaigns, when I was 9 and 13. I think that's probably pretty rare.

Harry Browne was the Libertarian nominee in 1996 and 2000.  Were you 9 and 13 in 1996 and 2000, or were you 17 and 21 in 1988 and 1992?

[Pointedstick]

The problem with political action is it legitimizes the wrong stuff by only dissagreeing on details. Supporting the guy who advocates less theft is an acceptance of theft. Supporting the guy who favors less intereference in the market is acceptance of interference. Supporting the guy in favor of regulating pot is acceptance of other people deciding what you can smoke.

The libertarians and small government activists lose and lose and lose. They always think if they can just do a better job with their comprimised message maybe by some miracle they will gain traction. Instead they get devastated.

This sounds satisfying but I don't think it's right. Think about gun rights in this country. They were on the brink of death in the 70s. What brought us to where we are today? Was it unyielding, uncompromising fidelity to the principle of totally unrestricted civilian access to any type of weaponry from day 1? Or was it a series of unpleasant compromises, small steps that added up over time, and strategic legal challenges working within and even acknowledging the legitimacy of the system?

I think you know the answer.

[MachineGhost]

I always find it interesting to compare the grievances that actually caused the revolutionary war compared to their modern equivalents. It definitely appears that Americans have grown far more tolerant of taxes and gun control (in particular) than our insurrectionist forefathers were. I often wonder whether liberals in particular think that the American revolutionary war was a mistake.

50% of the Tories certainly did.  IT would a tragic mistake to assume that back then there was majority or super-majority support for the Revolutionary War.

And the real problem wasn't silly tea taxes, it was the writs of George that lasted until a King's death.  Specifically the writ that allowed the Brits to search your house and/or business for any reason without cause whenever they bloody liked.  That's real tyranny, not taxes (which was just a representation issue).

[Kshartle]

I knew about Harry Browne long before I had ever heard of the PP or any of his books. I knew him from the '88 and '92 campaigns, when I was 9 and 13. I think that's probably pretty rare.

Harry Browne was the Libertarian nominee in 1996 and 2000.  Were you 9 and 13 in 1996 and 2000, or were you 17 and 21 in 1988 and 1992?

My mistake......'96 and '00.

I do remember the '84 Regan election when I was 5. My parents were very pro Regan.

Wow I really thought Browne ran much earlier.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess at the ripe old age of 34 my memory is slipping. It's 2004 now right?

[MachineGhost]

Wow I really thought Browne ran much earlier.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess at the ripe old age of 34 my memory is slipping. It's 2004 now right?

A lot of libertarians thought Browne sold out when he ran for President.  But he too must have eventually realized you cannot keeping escaping or circumventing encroaching tyranny; you must take a stand and work to reform and/or abolish it.

[Kshartle]

Wow I really thought Browne ran much earlier.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess at the ripe old age of 34 my memory is slipping. It's 2004 now right?

A lot of libertarians thought Browne sold out when he ran for President.  But he too must have eventually realized you cannot keeping escaping or circumventing encroaching tyranny; you must take a stand and work to reform and/or abolish it.

That being said....how do you think the libertarians are doing?

They have had a dismal accounting in the political arena and in particular the presidential elections.

Have they succeeded in moving the dems or repubs to a more libertarian philosophy? Doesn't look like it. Obama and Romney are probably the most liberal, big government pair of presidential contestants ever. The socialist party is succeeding in all of their planks and the libertarians failing left and right as far as I can tell.

I imagine they did. I actually still think this is the case....but retroactively as I evolved from a republican (sort of due to parents) then libertarian and then full blown anarchist.

[Kshartle]

Moda, holy Moses.

I have been accused of being too verbose at times. I've even accused myself.

Thank you for reminding me everything is relative, and I'm not that bad

j/k....I'll read your tome and respond concisely with a at least a one-to-one focus on points of agreement of which there are several.

If I can invent verbal Imodium A-D for myself would you like a dose? 

[MachineGhost]

That being said....how do you think the libertarians are doing?

They have had a dismal accounting in the political arena and in particular the presidential elections.

Well, the Libertarians may not have won any battles, but they did move the war.  We've politically shifted to right big time.  Market solutions are talked about at the highest level of politics; whereas before it was completely anathema.  In fact, its probably shifted too far right now that we've got those really extreme rightwingut, religious Republicans.  While the shift did accelerate with Reaganism and Thatcherism, it definitely hit its twilight with the collapse of the ex-USSR and all those leftwinguts had to wake up out of their stupid pipe dream.  But we've still got a long ways to go to dismantle the tentacles of the Neo-Socialist state.  Starting with the FIRE sector.

[moda0306]

Moda, holy Moses.

I have been accused of being too verbose at times. I've even accused myself.

Thank you for reminding me everything is relative, and I'm not that bad

j/k....I'll read your tome and respond concisely with a at least a one-to-one focus on points of agreement of which there are several.

If I can invent verbal Imodium A-D for myself would you like a dose? 

Absolutely. That one was a stretcher.

[moda0306]

the message is true, and needs articulate proponents,  the people who are good at getting it across either "never win or change their tune if elected.." you don't really know if they are lairs who might get elected, or truth tellers who cant.... until after the fact. but they still inform and educate along the way, and they create a cynical population that distrusts politicians for there lying ways..... both are necessary

As I've said the most successful political party in the US for the last 100 years has been the socialist/communists. They've won every battle even without winning elections. They've won because good people decided to play their game and the commies have never comprimised their principles. They stand firm by them, even if they are the most disgusting and discredited principles from the darkest parts of the human heart.

"Parties" don't exist. There are only individuals and their individual opinions on how society should be organized. Their opinions can only be "successful" if they determine that they have accomplished or are accomplishing their individual goal.  I doubt Karl Marx would look at society today in the US and grin that he had accomplished his goal, or is accomplishing it.

I highly doubt most true communists (most people are confused as to what communism actually is) feel like their societal goals are being realized. Most socialists aren't either.

In fact, I wonder if anyone who has so confidently proclaimed what their "ism" is feeling like society is realizing it. The very nature of worrying about things you can't control tends to delude people into thinking that their political ideal will accompany social harmony that doesn't currently exist, and has to account for why it may be getting worse.

[Pointedstick]

Karl Marx, were he alive today, would probably be flummoxed to see how many of his ideas rule our society at the same time that people believe that they sent his legacy to the grave.

After all, here was what Marx advocated for:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Quite a few of those should be eerily familiar.

[moda0306]

Karl Marx, were he alive today, would probably be flummoxed to see how many of his ideas rule our society at the same time that people believe that they sent his legacy to the grave.

After all, here was what Marx advocated for:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Quite a few of those should be eerily familiar.

Due to the symbiotic nature of government and the people/businesses it interacts with, I don't care to get into a dog vs tail debate regarding the nature of our current regulatory/monetary/tax framework.  Does the fed control the banks or vice versa?  Or is it just a bunch of individuals under the influence of someone else who might fire them or cut their pay?  As much as I love hijacking threads, diving into that is just too much .

Regarding the "10 rules of Marxism" or whatever they were. These things are means to a desired end by Marxists. Not the end in itself.  For all a socialist/communist's flaws, let's not overdramatize their intentions... They think a state is a tool to better people's lives from some less ideal alternative.  It's not an end to itself (in spite of what actors WITHIN the commie/socialist state might do as part of their gig).

Considering the reasons why true communists (not just politicians) believe in communism as a political tool, I doubt they feel like they're winning. Though, Nobody steeped in politics does. Because people that are that obsessed with controlling things they can't are far more able to see the evil in the world than the good.  And if that's all you tend to see, you're never going to see your side as winning.